TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Lianhe Zaobao journalist Ms Yew Lun Tian who conducted a rare interview with Singapore Democratic Party leader Dr Chee Soon Juan a few weeks ago, has posted a clarification on her Facebook denying that she had attempted to put Dr Chee in a bad light deliberately by portraying him as being evasive about his income. Dr Chee had taken offence at the following segments of the interview which was published on 28 February 2010 in Lianhe Zaobao: "坊间流传他是拿了外国机构的资金，所以才能继续在新加坡无后顾之忧地进行公民抗争式的斗争。左问右问，他回答说：“我是学者，偶尔也领一些外国的研究基金。我的著作有时获奖，有时也参加海外的研究计划。”哪方面的研究，是有关民主的研究吗？他含糊地说：“嗯，或者是人类行为之类的。” The above was translated to an article by Jeremy Au Yong which was published in Straits Times the next day: "After being prompted a few times, he replied he also gets money from doing research work overseas.......When asked what area of research work he does, he replies vaguely "er, human behaviour or something like that". A day later, SDP Assistant Secretary-General John Tan sent a letter to the editors of both Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao on behalf of Dr Chee who was in prison: "I wish to give you the heads up that there are several matters in the reports over which Dr. Chee takes issue with. For instance, the articles appear to suggest, inaccurately, that Dr. Chee was evasive when touching on questions about foreign funds." (read article here) This was followed by letters written by Dr Chee Soon Juan to the forum pages of Lianhe Zaobao and Straits Times on 7 March 2010: "Dr Chee Soon Juan has written letters to the forum pages of the Lianhe Zaobao and Straits Times over the interview that was published by Zaobao on 28 Feb 10 where the newspaper said that the SDP secretary-general was evasive when asked about his income." (read article here) The Straits Times Forum published Dr Chee's letter on 17 March 2010 titled "Chee claims ZB interview implied he was anti-S'pore." Dr Chee accused the article by Ms Yew as an attempt to portray him as being evasive about his income: "The way that the report is written is clearly an attempt to portray me as being evasive about my income. I had told the Zaobao reporter, Ms Yew Lun Tian, clearly that I depended on my books and from time to time, help from my relatives for survival. Because she found it hard to believe that this was sufficient, I told her that we lived simply and frugally......Yet Ms Yew reported it in such a way that I was trying to avoid her answer and had something to hide. What is left unsaid, although clearly implied, is that I may be a stooge of a foreign agent conducting activities against Singapore." (read letter here) In a posting on her Facebook yesterday, Ms Yew wrote that she received numerous feedback from friends and colleagues who thought that her interview was another attempt by the mainstream media to sabotage Dr Chee after reading his letter in the Straits Times Forum. She added that she was tired of explaining to them individually and she is now laying the facts on her Facebook for readers to judge for themselves. Ms Yew revealed that she was the one who initiated the interview with Dr Chee as she thought that readers are curious about him and the 30th anniversary dinner of SDP presented an opportunity for the interview with the emphasis that she was not directed from "above" to do so. "Alongside the interview was a 500 word news article about the Dinner, and a photo of the fashion show highlighting SDP uniform. Both were written by me. To my knowledge, this is the first time local media ran a profile interview of Dr Chee and gave SDP under him so much publicity," she wrote. She explained further that she implied Dr Chee's replies were evasive in the article because they were as she had to ask at least seven times in different ways to get the answers. In other words, she was simply reporting the facts as there were - that Dr Chee did appear to be evasive. A partial transcript of the interview is posted here. The predictable response of Dr Chee and his supporters may be sparked by historical animosities between him and the Singapore media which had demonized him countless of times in the past. To be fair, the articles on the SDP anniversary dinner and the interview with Dr Chee by Ms Yew were largely objective, fair and balanced and did portray SDP positively on a whole, even prompting one blogger to write an article "The coming around of SDP and Dr Chee". Ms Yew even used a smiling photo of Dr Chee in her article (see left) and quoting him in a caption to generate a positive image of him and SDP which will not be the case had she really wanted to "sabotage" him. While the mainstream media has not done itself any favors with some blatant unfair and inaccurate mis-reporting on opposition leaders in the past, we have to be rational and give credit when it is due. Adopting an antagonistic stance against the mainstream media all the time will not do the opposition any favors. In this case, though Dr Chee was portrayed as being evasive in the interview, he did state clearly the source of his income which has helped to dispel lingering public doubts about him and this would not be possible if Ms Yew had not proposed the interview to her superior in the first place.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so and help us exceed the number of fans on the official YPAP Facebook page.  Read More →

OPINION During a polytechnic forum in September last year, a student asked Dr Vivian point-blank in his face why the government is allowing foreigners to compete with Singaporeans for job. The feisty Dr Vivian shot back immediately: “Would Singaporeans be willing to be taxed heavily to support the country’s ageing population in 20 years’ time? This would be the case if Singapore did not bring in foreign talent.” Dr Vivian's conjecture will only hold true if the immigrants have a higher birth rate than native Singaporeans and if they consume less public resources than them. Both scenarios are unlikely to happen. In 2003, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced his most ambitious plan to increase Singapore's population to 6.5 million people by 2030. (To put things in perspective, New Zealand, which is more than 370 times the size of Singapore has a population of only 4.3 million people.) All of sudden without warning, the floodgates were flung open without any proper screening and Singapore was swarmed by foreigners who now make up 36 percent of Singapore's population. A population will only grow if its total fertility rate exceeds the minimum replacement rate of 2.1 which means that each woman should have two children on average. Though the inflow of immigrants will increase Singapore's population in the short-term, it will not boost its birth rate unless the newcomers and their descendents have more children than the locals. The key reason behind Singaporeans not wanting to have more children is economic, due to a combination of five factors: unstable job, stagnant wages, increased cost of living, sky-rocketing HDB prices and increased stress. Unless the new citizens live in the offshore islands or in ghettos, they are likely to be subjected to the same conditions as Singaporeans. Not all immigrants are as rich as Jet Li. In fact, most of them are like middle-class Singaporeans living in HDB flats. Will they be able to afford to have more children than Singaporeans? It is highly improbable that the new immigrants will bear two or more children in Singapore given the same constraints in financial resources. Their children will have a fertility rate closer to the national average of 1.2 rather than 2.1. At the end of the day, Singapore's fertility rate will not increase by much so long the limiting factors remain in place. It is myopic of the PAP to mass import foreigners into Singapore at such an alarming rate now without realizing that they are only going to create another set of problems. Though foreigners may help to support our aging population right now and in the near future, they will also grow old themselves in 20 to 30 years' time. Who will come and support them then? According to figures from the Home Affairs Ministry, the number of new citizens averages around 20,000 between the years 2007 - 2009. Assuming it remains the same for the next twenty years, we will have an additional 400,000 new citizens. The new citizens in their 40s now will be in their 60s and those in their 30s now will be in their 50s in twenty years' time. Some of them may fell ill along the way and become unfit to work. Others may succumb to sudden heart attacks or strokes and a rising number will be afflicted with chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidaemia. Will the increased taxes paid by these immigrants help to offset the expected increase in public healthcare costs? Singapore has a progressive tax system in which the top earners may the full income tax and the lowest income group pay no taxes at all. No statistics are available on the income status of the new citizens though it is likely that they will mirror that of Singaporeans with about 20 - 30 percent in the lower income group and 40 - 60 percent in the middle-income group. Even now, our public healthcare system is being stretched to its limits with chronic over-crowding at polyclinics and hospitals especially Tan Tock Seng Hospital, long waits for specialist appointments and shortage of doctors and nurses due to high turnover rates. Though no official figures are available, anecdotal evidence on the ground suggest that almost 90 percent of Singapore-trained doctors will leave for the private sector once their 5-year bond with MOH ended if they are not undergoing further training to be specialists and more than half the nurses will leave or change professions each year. To plug the gaps in manpower, MOH has resorted to recruiting more foreign doctors and nurses overseas without exploring ways of retaining their services within the public healthcare system. Can our healthcare professionals cope with the increased demand on their services fueled by immigration? Increasing the population blindly via immigration without any proper planning is a stop-gap measure which does not address the underlying causes of Singapore's decline birth rates. Ultimately, a nation's population will only grow from natural births and not from import of foreigners elsewhere. The PAP should tackle the problem right at its roots by improving the standards of living among ordinary Singaporeans so that they will be inclined to bear more children instead of taking an easy shortcut by turning to foreigners. In fact, the relentless influx of foreigners may have contributed to the declining birth rates of Singaporeans as their increasing numbers has depressed the wages and increased the cost of living for Singaporeans, especially that of HDB flats - the very reasons why Singaporeans are not having children. Unlike other developed countries, education and healthcare are not free in Singapore. It costs alot to bring up a child and to support him/her all the way till university in Singapore. If the PAP wants to encourage Singaporeans to have more children, it should first control the prices of HDB flats and reduce them to a more realistic and sustainable level. The present prices are way too high for ordinary Singaporeans earning a median monthly income of around $2,600. After deducting the mortgage loans for their flats and living expenses, a household will have little left for the children. Not only will the continued inflow of immigrants not improve Singapore's birth rates, it will compound the problem and create new ones such as escalating social tension and conflict. What is Singapore's ideal population? How many immigrants do we need? What is a reasonable birth rate to aim for? It is time we realize that being a developed economy like the United States and Europe now, we can no longer grow at breath-taking speed like in the past. The use of cheap foreign workers to keep our labor costs down and GDP growth high is no longer a viable option. We have to accept the fact our population is aging and make contingency plans to tackle the "Silver Tsunami" which will hit us 20 years from now. Bringing in middle-aged immigrants into Singapore is tantamount to adding more senior citizens into our population later on. We need a more directed, comprehensive and holistic approach to our current immigration policies instead of increasing the population blindly via mass importing of foreigners from elsewhere.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so and help us exceed the number of fans on the official YPAP Facebook page.   Related articles: >> How immigration can destroy a nation: Balhae versus Silla >> Why the present wave of immigration is different from the past >> Wong Kan Seng: We should remember that immigrant children will one day be like us >> 8 reasons why foreign workers will always be preferred in Singapore >> Declining wages of Singaporeans and the continued denial by PAP leaders >> Halimah Yacob refutes UBS study findings >> Halimah Yacob: Productivity drive will be derailed if foreign worker challenge not addressed  >> Exposing the six major flaws in the PAP’s immigration policies >> Wong Kan Seng promises to tighten immigration policies >> SM Goh: Foreign workers numbers may still rise >> Malaysian car mechanic applying for Singapore citizenship >> PAP launches Singapore Citizenship Journey to help new citizens integrate >> Compulsory for new citizens to attend “sharing sessions” with grassroots leaders >> Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be more tolerant of foreign workers >> Tharman: Foreign workers increase income of low-income families >> Sylvia Lim: Pace and influx of foreigners over last few years is wrong >> Amy Khor urges Singaporeans to welcome foreigners >> PAP MP wants more money to be spent to make new citizens feel welcomed in Singapore >> Shanmugam: Foreigners generate jobs for Singaporeans >> Vivian happy there are 4,500 new citizens serving as grassroots leaders >> Cosmetic changes made to immigration policy >> SM Goh: New immigrants needed to make up population shortfall >> PAP ministers hailed contributions of foreigners >> SM Goh expressed support for Zhang Yuanyuan >> State media: citizens have more rights over PRs >> Zhang Yuanyuan got her Singapore PR in only 2 months >> Official reply from government on the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco >> Singapore PRC PR proclaimed loyalty to China publicly >> PRC resident hung China flag to celebrate its National Day >> PRC student in Singapore wants more scholarships for foreigners >> PRC prostitutes solicit for customers on Singapore’s cyberspace >> ERA: 40 per cent of resale flats buyers are PRs  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) has replied to queries from a Singaporean Mr Tan Keng Hong on discriminatory job advertisements against Singaporeans highlighted previously by Temasek Review such as Keppel Corp and Courts putting up ads in Malaysian papers to recruit Malaysians at the expense of Singaporeans. Mr Tan has also CC his complaint letter to NTUC, Ministry of Manpower, ST Forum, TODAY Online, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, NTUC Secretary-General Lim Swee Say and his deputy Halimah Yacob. He has since received a reply from TAFEP that it had "been in touch with the job portal and the foreign recruitment agency to stress the importance of using objective, relevant and non-discriminatory criteria when advertising to fill a position." and both have removed the offending advertisement and agreed to sign the fair employment pledge. TAFEP was set up in 2006 to promote the adoption of fair and responsible employment practices among employers and is co-chaired by Mr Bob Tan, Vice President of Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and Madam Halimah Yacob. It also receives feedback from the public on their discrimination experiences and provides advice and assistance to those who have experienced discrimination at the workplace. Discriminatory job ads against Singaporeans are ubiquitous on local-based online job portals with one recruitment agency evening seeking out foreigners on social visit passes to Singapore. Singaporeans should get priority in jobs and not foreigners. In fact, they should never be allowed to compete directly with Singaporeans in positions which can otherwise be filled up by them. We must all unite and make our voices heard. If we do not help fellow Singaporeans, who can we count on to do so? Netizens who come across such job ads can contact TAFEP directly:  Phone: +65 6838 0969 Fax: +65 6732 6849 Email: [email protected]   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so and help us exceed the number of fans on the official YPAP Facebook page.  Read More →